ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

Cr. Acquittal Appeal No. D- 19 of 2021.

Date of hearing Order with signature of Judge.

1.For orders on office objections as flag A.

2.For orders on M.A No.749 /2022.

` 3.For hearing of main case.

05.12.2023.

Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. P.G.

======

Today again the appellant as well as her counsel are called not in attendance. Mr.Ali Raza Pathan while holding brief for Mr.Khan Mohammad Sangi submits that the latter is busy before Bench of this court at Sukkur, hence seeks date.

Through this criminal acquittal appeal, appellant has assailed impugned judgment of acquittal dated 20.03.2021 passed by learned trial Court in Sessions Case No.22 of 2020 re: State v. Ghulam Musatafa and others) arisen out of Crime NO.35 of 2020 of P.S Napar Kot District Shikarpur registered for an offence under Sections 386, 504, 506/2, 148, 149 PPC and 6/7 of ATA.

Learned Addl. P.G, after going through the impugned judgment refer to concluding para thereof and submits that no case for interference is made out, hence instant appeal against acquittal of respondents No.1 to 8 does not merit consideration.

We have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as file and found that the appellant has annexed a copy of impugned judgment only whereas failed to annex the relevant documents viz. depositions, copy of charge, statement of accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. which are essential documents for maintenance of appeal against acquittal. Before parting with this order, it would be appropriate to reproduce the concluding para of impugned judgment which reads as under:

“ According to PW-1 complainant Mst.Kashmira and PW-2 Shah Rukh both have deposed in their examination in chief that sometime back accused demanded bhatta but both have failed to give the date and time when accused demanded bhatta from them prior to this incident. The PW-1 complainant Mst.Kashmira has also not stated a single word about the date and time in her FIR that when accused demanded bhatta from her. Moreover the prosecution evidence is silent regarding financial status and source of income of the complainant against whom accused had been demanding bhatta of Rs.50 lacs. The complainant has also failed to disclose the specific dates and places of demanding bhatta by the accused persons. In this regard the reliance is placed in the case law reported SBLR 2018 Sindh 2103 Dilawar Khan & another Vs. The State. PW-1 complainant Mst.Kashmira has further stated that accused Ghulam Mustafa and others challenged her as to why she has not paid the bhatta to them therefore, they will not spare her and commit her murder but PW-2 Shah Rukh has stated that accused Ghulam Mustafa, Eiden and others pointed their weapons upon Mst.Kashmira and asked her as to why she has not paid bhatta to them, accused further asked complainant as to why she has come to the land.

In cross examination, PW-1 complainant Mst.Kashmira has deposed that she had moved an application against the same accused for demanding bhatta which was pending before the court of learned I™ Additional Sessions Judge Shikarpur but PW-3 IIC Rahim Khan who is author of FIR has deposed that he was posted at PS Naper Kot about two months prior to lodging the FIR but he does not know whether complainant Mst.Kashmira had moved an application before the Sessions Court regarding non registration of her FIR of same incident. PW-1 complainant Mst.Kashmira has deposed that she does not know whether same PWs cited in this case are also witnesses in the previous case pending before the court and denied that she has filed application u/s 3-4 of Illegal Dispossession Act before the court regarding same property but PW-S Mohammad Sharif has contradicted and deposed that he is witness in the application filed by complainant Mst.Kashmira under Illegal Dispossession Act regarding same land. PW-1 complainant Mst. Kashmira has further deposed that she had provided the documents of their land to I.O during the investigation but PW4 1.0/Inspector Bakhtiar Malik has not deposed a single word about the documents of the same land provided by the complainant to him during investigation. The PW-4 I.0/Inspector Bakhtiar Malik also admitted in his cross examination that complainant has not mentioned the specific date in FIR on which the accused demanded bhatta from complainant prior to lodging FIR. The I.O/Inspector Bakhtiar Mailk has also admitted that he did not obtain CDR regarding availability of accused and complainant at the time of incident.

Moreover accused Ghulam Mustafa during recording his statement u/s 342 Cr.PC has produced CTC of application u/s 3-4 of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 at Ex.11/A filed by complainant Mst.Kashmira before the learned 3 Additional Session Judge Shikarpur which clearly shows that there is admitted dispute in between the parties over the landed property and same matter seems to be of civil nature but the complainant party has converted the matter into criminal litigation.

All such contradictions and lacunas in the evidence of complainant and PWs/police officials are sufficient to make the whole prosecution case about the incident as well as its manner mentioned in the FIR as doubtful. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in the case law reported 1995 SCMR 1345 Tariq Pervez Vs. The State as under:-

“that, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances for extending benefit of doubt but if a simple circumstance creates a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of accused then he will be entitled to the benefit not as matter of grace and concession but as matter of right.”

As such, | am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the present accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, therefore, the point No.1 to 3 under discussion are answered as not proved. The case law relied upon by the counsel appearing for complainant are not applicable, as the facts and circumstances of that cases are different to the facts of present case.”

For what has been discussed above, impugned judgment dated 20.03.2021 in respect of acquittal of respondents No.1 to 8 passed by learned trial Court does not suffer from any material or legal infirmity, hence it does not call for any interference by this Court, therefore, instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE